I would be fearful that the States would not put a proportionate share of this money that they receive under revenue sharing into conservation, into the programs that I support the most.

I see merit to the proposal in general, but in this particular case, I would be fearful that Clark-McNary fire control funds would not be sustained under the revenue sharing plan.

Senator BELLMON. So you are for revenue sharing for somebody else?

Mr. TOWELL. I am for revenue sharing in principle to the degree that it doesn't seriously curtail or damage those programs that I as a conservationist feel very strongly about

Senator BELLMON. Mr. Chairman, that is all.

Senator McGOVERN. Senator Helms.

Senator HELMS. Following up Senator Bellmon on conservation, let me say first, Mr. Towell, you have the strongest lobbyist in my family, my son is majoring in forestry.

The only question is, I agree with the Senator that, contrary to your feeling about it, I think you get decidedly more or better reception from the State legislatures, particularly in my State, about funding programs. I just hope as a North Carolinian, that will be explored.

I sense an awareness of the crisis lying down the road in terms of timber. I agree with the Senator, I think you might well think about that aspect more. There is a growing tendency in Washington to realize a lot of programs we can't really supervise.

I would be interested, for example, in my own State of North Carolina's support-on the State level-for conservation and foresty. I'm wondering if, in the long run, these programs would not be more effective if supervised and funded primarily on the State level, rather that via the process of the taxpayers' sending money to Washington to be back, in small part, to the various States.

I have no further questions.

Senator MCGOVERN Thank you, Mr. Towell, for your presentation here.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, could I make just a comment on that point?

I hate to see the Congress use revenue sharing as a further method to abdicate some of our own responsibility and just put up our hands and say we are not going to be concerned with these problems, we will just send this money back to the States and let them wrestle with it.

I think if we do that on a great scale, then we are again diminishing the authority and responsibility we have.

Trees don't stop growing at State lines and streams don't start running at State lines, and the need for conservation and forestry certainly extends beyond the borders of any individual State.

I believe this is a responsibility. If we are looking toward conserving our resources for future generations, we are conserving for all Americans and not Kentuckians, North Carolinians, or South Carolinians. But because of the nature of this type of program, it seems to be this is where Congress ought to have a broad policy nationwide. In order to make it effective, it has got to be made nationwide and extended beyond State boundaries and financing of it ought to be considered on that basis.

Senator McGOVERN. I think the Senator's point is well taken. I have been willing to go along with the revenue-sharing approach on a somewhat experimental basis, but the concept has always bothered me, I must say, that the Congress will lay the taxes and collect the money and then turn it back to others who have no responsibility for that, to spend it as they wish. This is a very risky procedure, to say the least.

Senator HUDDLESTON. I think certainly there are programs within the State that the local and State authorities are better equipped to make determinations on.

Senator McGOVERN. I agree with that.

Senator HUDDLESTON. There are others that have nationwide implications.

Senator BELLMON. Mr. Chairman, since I raised the point, let me comment on revenue sharing.

The problem isn't that the Congress raises the money and spends the money; the problem is we raise the money and then turn it over to a bureaucracy and it is out of reach of not only the Congress, but everyone else. By giving it back to the State legislatures and municipal governments, they at least are responsive to the electoral process, to their own constituents. That was the basis for my supporting revenue sharing.

The intent is to get the power in the hands of the government officials who are not insulated from the people that, in theory, they should be serving.

Senator McGOVERN. Of course, the theory is those bureaucrats are supposed to be somewhat responsible to the Congress.

Senator BELLMON. You try to fire one. I haven't been able to get it done.

Senator McGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Towell.

The next witness is Mr. Zimmerman.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Zimmerman.

STATEMENT OF GORDON K. ZIMMERMAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate this chance to appear before you on S. 459 and the other matters you are considering.

I am appearing today on behalf of the National Association of Conservation Districts-NACD-to express the deep concern of my organization over the termination of programs and the cutbacks in appropriated funds by the executive branch that seriously affect the conservation efforts of our Nation.

NACA represents the 3,019 conservation districts organized in accordance with State laws in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These districts are managed by more than 18,000 men and women, serving voluntarily and without compensation. They exist and function for the express purpose of planning and carrying out needed land, water, forest, and wildlife conservation practices on the privately owned lands of the Nation.

Approximately 2 million private property owners, mostly farmers and ranchers, are cooperating with their local districts in these constructive programs.

Conservation district leaders have been working for environmental improvement in the American countryside for over 35 years. They have been making notable progress toward this goal. With the assistance of cooperating Federal, State, and local agencies, they are helping to protect and improve the landscape of America.

The results are reduced soil erosion, more efficient water management, better hunting and fishing, reduction and prevention of floods,. improved forests, and accelerated economic growth in many rurali

areas.

This vital work of soil and water conservation in which the districts of the country are engaged is largely dependent on the availability of support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in terms of techni-cal assistance, cost sharing, research, and education. It is our experience during the last 35 years that all four of these elements are essential to steady progress.

As long as we undertake to foster the voluntary cooperation of farmers and ranchers in constructive conservation, we need all four. We need them to insure the establishment of critical soil, water, forest, and wildlife conservation measures that benefit the entire public-as: well as the owners of the land upon which they are installed.

Over the years, the Congress has endorsed this grassroots, voluntary approach to soil and water conservation on the privately owned lands of the country. State and county governments have similarly endorsed and supported these efforts in various ways.

Today we are deeply troubled by the events of recent weeks. The › rural environmental assistance program and the water bank program have been summarily terminated by the executive branch. In addition, $30 million appropriated for programs of the Soil Conservation Service have been impounded, and this produces serious limitations on the watershed protection and flood prevention program throughout the country-as well as the vital technical assistance available to farmers and ranchers.

The administration has also cut back nearly $10 million appropriated for the important cooperative forest fire control program under section 2 of the Clark-McNary Act, about which Mr. Towell has just spoken. This is not the only setback to our efforts to help improve the quality of 300 million acres of nonindustrial private forests sorely in need of attention. Each year, REAP was doing more and more to provide incentives to owners to upgrade these forest lands. Now that incentiveis gone.

Districts have consistently supported the continuation and expansion of the rural environmental assistance program-formerly the agricultural conservation program. I would like to quote from our current NACD policy on this subject:

We regard Federal cost-sharing as an extremely important aid to conservation progress in the United States. It provides valuable support for the programs of conservation districts.

We believe that technical assistance and conservation cost sharing, used in combination, are effective aids to farmers and other landowners in getting conservation measures applied to the land. The services provided by SCS technicians in the application of practices with costsharing help has advanced district programs of planned conservation for entire farms, ranches, and watersheds.

We support increased funding for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program, recognizing the expanded emphasis on sediment control from agricultural lands as well as the relatively high construction costs of such necessary environmental measures as animal waste lagoons.

Over the years, we have advocated changes in the rural environmental assistance programs in order to make it more effective in achieving its purposes. For example, we have recommended that priority be given to the use of REAP funds for long-term, enduring practices; and that there be additional emphasis on pollution abatement, recreational, and other environmental measures. During the past several years, at the direction of Congress, there has been substantial progress in these directions.

In addition to the importance of REAP to American agriculture, I would like to underscore its value in connection with another of the most critical problems of our times-water pollution from sediment. The total annual sediment movement is estimated to exceed 4 billion tons in an average year. It is difficult to deal with because it originates from thousands and thousands of places across the entire country.

Rough estimates available to us indicate that the suspended solids reaching the streams and rivers of the country from surface runoff are at least 700 times the loadings caused by sewage discharge.

About 500 million tons a year are moved by our rivers into the oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. More than a billion tons of sediment are deposited each year in our major reservoirs.

A substantial share of this sediment load comes from the farms and ranches of the country. Our only hope of cutting it down is through a thorough conservation program, based on individual conservation farm plans, technical assistance, up-to-date research, and the kind of conservation cost sharing that has been provided by REAP.

More than soil is involved in this problem. When water flows over the land, it picks up and moves everything that is movable, including not only the soil particles, but organic residues, plant nutrients, pesticides, manure, and infectious organisms.

Without REAP and with a reduction in the capability of the Soil Conservation Service, I am convinced there will be a slowdown in conservation progress in our country. It will hurt agriculture, private forestry, wildlife, recreation, watershed protection, and pollution abatement.

We do not agree with the Department of Agriculture's termination statement on REAP that conservation cost sharing on the farms and ranches of America is an "income supplement." Instead, we regard it as an important incentive to farmers and ranchers to move ahead with the application of conservation measures. The money is just enough, in probably thousands of instances, to cause farmers to invest in conservation rather than in other alternatives open to them for the use of their limited funds.

Neither do we regard the payments made to farmers under the waterbank program as "income supplements." Instead, these payments represent a fair compensation to landowners to maintain potholes and wetlands on their properties for the benefit of wildlife and waterfowl-in the public interest.

Conservation-minded farmers and ranchers are worried that the administration may have decided, by its own set of judgments, to

lower the ranking of conservation and natural resources considerations on the roster of national priorities.

In districts, we find this a matter of deep anxiety and concern. For years, as members of this committee know, district leaders and conservation cooperators throughout the Nation have come to their individual Senators, and to their Congressmen, to explain their programs and to seek support.

We have depended on you for the necessary laws and authorizations. We have stated our case each year in the traditional manner before the Agricultural Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees. We have done our best and rested our case on the judgments of the Congress.

Much has been said lately, with less than laudatory implications, about the "special interests." In the conservation districts of the country we accept this designation. We are proud to be among the spokesmen and pleaders for conservation of natural resources. We do this not for profit or personal gain, but to make America a stronger, better place to work and live-and in order to maintain the soil that gives us food.

I have an idea that America is made up of "special interests." Just about everyone I know, or know about, belongs to something: A church, a veterans' organization, a farm organization, a business group, or something. Every one of them is a special interest, and we think that's fine. Among other things, it demonstrates that Americans are taking an active part in the society and in their communities. Many of these perfectly healthy special interests compete for public attention and public approval. Many of them come to the Congress for assistance-and again there is a competition of sorts, because we all know that there are limitations on available money and on what can be done.

The point is that the Senate and the House of Representatives made the decisions. You weighed the various alternatives and you made the judgments. We have always been happy to abide by them because you come from our counties and towns. Collectively, you represent all of us and you know us.

Now we find the whole system is being changed, and we are worried and bewildered. Who do we talk to about programs and fundsand about the ranking of natural resources efforts in competition with many other worthy needs of the Nation? We need your help. Senator McGOVERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmerman, for an excellent statement.

I think your point is well taken about the positive value of representing various special interests. The President made the point in his press conference here the other day that seemed to me to be a peculiar one, that only he could represent the general interest, that the Members of the Congress by definition represent special interest; therefore, only in the Office of the President do you have anybody that is looking at the general interest.

But as I understand our system, the reason why the power of the purse and the power to make the laws of the land was vested in Congress was precisely that reason, so that all points of view could be brought to bear on it, and out of that comes the collective judgment of the representatives of the people.